Imagine for a moment what would happen if suddenly one company “buys” the Linux kernel, and suddenly you need to pay per the number of processes you run in your machine. Awful.
Spreadsheets for example became normal technology long before we had a good open source one. And arguably we still don't have an open source one that's more powerful than the closed source ones.
I don’t fully believe that either, but I see where the point would come from.
> Linux isn’t the “best” OS
kernel != OS.
kernel makes the OS possible. and the linux kernel makes it possible for a lot of linux OSes to exist.
also… android?
I stand by my point that Linux isn't particularly dominant in the consumer space, even if we include Android, whose Linux-ness and open source pedigree is questionable.
> the internal combustion engine is the “best” engine
> lorries/hgvs are not the “best” vehicles
then
> lorries/hgvs are in the minority, so the internal combustion engine cannot be the best vehicle
> … cars?
nothing you’ve said refutes the statement ‘linux is the “best” kernel’.
like, i geddit. you don’t like linux OSes. you’re entitled to have an opinion.
i personally disagree. but that doesn’t matter. my opinion is not really worth much.
what if we add Steam deck? chromebooks? smartTVs, smartwatches, amazon echo, google home? GoPro and similar cameras? Maybe we should add some drones too. There are way more devices using linux in the hands of consumers than all other OS's together.
Which is why you could make a credible case for Linux being the 'best' server OS, but you couldn't make the case for it in other spaces (consumer, embedded etc.), because the alternatives are preferred by huge chunks of the market.